of course, they say it's just planned parenthood, what with 90% of their services being abortions*

Quote:

The cuts, which left many low-income women with inconvenient or costly options, grew out of the effort to eliminate state support for Planned Parenthood. Although the cuts also forced clinics that were not affiliated with the agency to close — and none of them, even the ones run by Planned Parenthood, performed abortions — supporters of the cutbacks said they were motivated by the fight against abortion.

Now, the same sentiment is likely to lead to a shutdown next week of another significant source of reproductive health care: the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which serves 130,000 women with grants to many clinics, including those run by Planned Parenthood. Gov. Rick Perry and Republican lawmakers have said they would forgo the $35 million in federal money that finances the women’s health program in order to keep Planned Parenthood from getting any of it.

but the battle is spreading:

Quote:

Nationally, the newest target is Title X, the main federal family planning program. All four Republican presidential candidates support eliminating Title X, which was created in 1970 with Republican support from President Nixon and the elder George Bush, then a congressman.

Like other federal financing, Title X does not pay for abortions. Only some of it covers birth control. Title X also provides money for cervical and breast cancer screening, testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases, adolescent abstinence counseling, infertility counseling and other services.

of course

Quote:

Some experts also say the financing helps prevent about 400,000 abortions annually.

but let's not let facts, or the harsh realities of some people's lives, get in the way!

Quote:

“Eliminating Title X would not outlaw contraception,” said a spokesman for Ron Paul. “People would simply have to pay for contraceptives with their own money or money donated by private sources.”

of course, the fact that PP and title X are often the only resources available to poor women, i.e., ones least likely to be able to pay for their own....well, hey, didn't rick santorum point out that all those aborted babies are the reason we don't have enough low-wage workers to care for the elderly? we need more poor babies, so there will be people to fill those minimum wage jobs!

and if a few women die of cancer or risky pregnancies or similar things along the way, well, it's not like they can _vote_ or anything......waitaminute.

Can this be about the related shit-sack, anti-women qualities that people suddenly noticed Rush Limbaugh exhibits too? People like Limbaugh, Fischer, and many others in the right wing of politics can't seem to get past the idea of women having sex even when it's not relevant. The entire point of Sandra Fluke's testimony was that birth control has legitimate and necessary medicinal uses far beyond and totally unrelated to sexual activity.
I can understand that this might not be common knowledge. I don't doubt that Limbaugh was totally unaware of it before Fluke's testimony. But nobody claiming to have read the testimony can escape the divorce of birth control pills from sexual activity, and in any case Limbaugh certainly had ample opportunity to be made aware of this after his slander. It's inexcusable that he doesn't acknowledge or address it even in his supposed apology, because it means that he cannot get over the mental hurdle that this isn't just about sex. I wonder what it says about Limbaugh and others that this is the first and last thing they think about when it comes to women's health.

i, personally, have always been highly interested in the fact that when things like gay marriage come up, so many of these religious, family-values types immediately leap to the conclusion that this will mean legitimizing all manner of sexual deviancy (like santorum's man-on-dog thing). now you would think this group, of all people, would appreciate that marriage is about so much more than just sex - but no, all they can think about is sex sex sex. which leads one to suspect that they either aren't getting any sex, or at least not any good sex, and they are mostly pissed that someone somewhere is having sexy sexy fun.

limbaugh could not possibly have listened to one second of fluke's testimony; he heard "college co-ed" and "birth control", and immediately assumed it was all about having lots of wild sex.

and the really interesting thing is that, in all the uproar over limbaugh, no one has mentioned that she made two very important, and relevant, points:
1) georgetown, a jesuit university, provides birth control coverage in the health insurance it supplies faculty and staff - which pretty much blows any notion of "denying it for moral reasons" out of the water.
2) the pill _is_ prescribed for other purposes - but since it is thought of primarily as birth control, women who are using it for other reasons often have a very difficult time getting the insurance cos. to pay for it - even when they are supposed to. that's what happened to her friend with polycystic ovary syndrome.

so yeah, totally _not_ about sex - just fairness and proper medical care. clearly not anything ol' rush is interested in. or sadly, much of the republican party._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

I think that's coming from a couple of different factors. First there's the "fiscal conservative" argument (not actually all that economically-based) which opposes government spending on healthcare in the first place. Even if spending a little money for preventative medicine can lead to lower overall costs for the system. I think these views tend to be based on both the number of things that receive funding (so more smaller programs are worse than one large, more expensive program because they don't do the math) as well as the nature of things that get funded ("they want me to pay their medical bills!? OUTRAGEOUS!")

Secondly there's the "social conservative" element that tends not to understand women's health and doesn't want to because a deep look at the issue might unsettle a few of their cherished prejudices and have policy implications they're not comfortable supporting. Another social "conservative" element might see this as an extension of "feminism," by which they mean "women want special rights" and not the real thing.

I think the part that scares me the most is how so many guys practically panic at the very thought of learning about women's health as it differs from men's. Like the very mention of menstruation causes them to curl into the fetal position and whimper or something, I don't even know.

I know there are guys out there who just don't care (and some that are actually totally informed), but the vast majority of them seem to act like its some huge imposition on them if the subject ever comes up. Most of the guys I've dated in the past have been weird as hell about it. It's shoved aside as something 'icky' and irrelevant to their lives, so ultimately irrelevant to everything.

Now take all that willful ignorance and shove in a few politicians with lots of national news coverage that are flat out lying about things and it's no wonder people actually believe them. Any time the subject comes up in a way that might actually teach them something they cram their fingers in their ears and start humming.

it's an election year and the GOP's economic message pretty much consists of "let's do all the stuff that led to the 2008 meltdown, except do it more" and "the guy whose bullshit financial shell games cost you your job deserves a tax break!" so to some extent stabbing furiously at the culture war issues is kind of their only option

which means the Republicans really can't complain that they got led into a trap by those wily wascally Democwats, because a) Democwats aren't wily or wascally and now b) they kind of willingly walked into it

Wheels, you have to take into consideration that conservatives also often have what George Lakoff calls the "strict father" mentality. It's a world view, as much as many liberals have a much softer, more cuddly world view. And like all world views, it tints their perception of the crux of an argument. If your world view centers around the idea that people who work hard should be rewarded, and that suffering from your own mistakes is both the best incentive for becoming successful and an education in proper behavior (that is, discouraging the behavior of the unsuccessful and encouraging that of the successful), then you can view the attack of women in a different, if no less foreign, light.

Government assistance* encourages people to be lazy, where as being hungry motivates you to look for work. It's a focus on small scale concepts that tries hard not to look at big picture issues. There is no discussion of institutional prejudice or social pressures that discourage minorities from pursuing traditional achievements. There is only "tough love" - put them in jail when they break the law, make the penalties stiff, and they'll learn to behave and do the right thing to avoid jail.

Similarly, women who are given too much free health care will be irresponsible with their bodies. Hence, the belief that health care for low-income women creates more abortions (despite evidence to the contrary). It's the overriding belief that the right way to handle any situation is to punish specific behavior, such as laziness with hunger, and slutiness with health care costs. It doesn't allow for nuanced positions, because when you start accepting that there are flaws in the system then you can't punish lazy people anymore, and it's awfully hard to apply the strict father mentality to the institution.

* There is no government money in the rule requiring insurance companies to cover contraception. Unless Rush becomes an employee of Georgetown then none of his money will ever go toward covering Sandra Fluke's contraceptives, and even then it wouldn't be his taxes but his insurance premiums. So he started with a premise that was fictitious to begin with._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. Drawing upon this legacy, we provide students with a world-class learning experience focused on educating the whole person through exposure to different faiths, cultures and beliefs. With our Jesuit values and location in Washington, D.C., Georgetown offers students a distinct opportunity to learn, experience and understand more about the world.

so that does kinda sound like one could call it a jesuit university._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

Women across America who are seeking abortions are accidentally booking appointments at crisis pregnancy centers — pro-life, government-funded religious centers that don't provide abortions, but instead try to talk women out of terminating their pregnancies. VICE News investigated the misleading practices used by crisis pregnancy centers to draw in women with unplanned pregnancies, and the misinformation that is spread to discourage them from pursuing abortions.

Aslam spoke to a woman named Donna from Texas who was hoodwinked by such a trick when she called the White Rose Women's Center in Dallas, mistaking it for an abortion clinic. It was an easy mistake to make, since White Rose's website says things like, "If you are considering an abortion, you deserve to make a decision based on accurate and factual information," and promises "an open, non-judgmental setting."
...
Donna claims that when she called to ask how much an abortion would cost, she was told that the center didn't discuss pricing over the phone and that she needed to make an appointment. (Vice confirmed this by calling and asking the same question.) "It didn't occur to me there was a catch," Donna says. Once there, she was given a sonogram. It was then, with Donna on the table, that the technician launched into a lecture about God and the evils of abortion. "I was on a table, like vulnerable, with a sonogram machine on my stomach, like I couldn't get up. And I remember thinking to myself that there is no possible way this could be a medical facility." When she tried to leave, Donna claims, the worker pushed the machine into her stomach and tried to hold her there, forcing Donna to grab her hand and move it out of the way so she could leave.

The Vice crew gives Donna her chance at a sort of vengeance, strapping a hidden camera on her and sending her back into the clinic, where she documents workers lying about the mental health and breast cancer risks of abortion, telling her she's two weeks further along than she is, and foisting tiny baby dolls on her. In a satisfying moment, Donna confronts the staff about how they misled her when she first booked an appointment. "I apologize if you were duped," the worker says. "But we have to fight for each other.”

There's much more to the video—you should watch the whole thing—but the most striking takeaway is how easy it is for these centers to lie to women, at every step of the way, from the websites to the counseling appointments. It makes it hard not to wonder if the claim that they care about women is also a lie.

NSF money is so limited these days, i doubt much is spent on hair loss. that's the sort of thing that the pharmas have no trouble spending a lot of money researching - they know there is a huge market, so they are certain to make a profit.

now, something like antibiotics....that, they have less interest in._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter